roninorder
Your example -- Finland -- is a very homogenous society with a population that grew from 4.5 to 5.5 million since 1960. The US, on the other hand, is vastly more diverse, both economically and culturally. US population grew from 180 to 345 million since 1960.
When advocating for UBI we can't also advocate for open borders. We have to pick one. Do you want a more open society that is also more economically inequitable, or do you want a more closed and homogenous society that is also more economically healthy? We can't do both unless we transform into some form of the World Government and an extremely globalized economy.
All economic systems (all systems in general) have to adapt to scale. What works for a village is unlikely to work for a country. European economic systems that seem more fair to you have not been yet tested by what we can expect the future world to look like. And when they have, they cracked and showed their flaws (e.g. the recent influx of immigrants from poor economies).
Also, a natural side-effect of more complex systems is that they become harder to manage. That's what we see in the US today. Disfunction at so many levels. China and a few other cultures are attempting to solve that by embracing a varying degree of authoritarianism - a more centralized control of, and distribution of, resources. This system has been proven to be fairly effective at scale (and the scale we can expect in the future). American society lately seems to be moving in a similar direction (both major parties). I don't have high confidence that our economic issues can be solved by anything other than a higher degree of authoritarianism than we currently have.
Lastly, we have experienced major automation breakthroughs throughout the 20th century. E.g. fields that took whole villages to plough now can be handled by a single operator of large machinery... I don't believe in automation as a singular solution for the reason described by inquisitorG above, i.e. human biology and human nature.
> In a very real sense, my most impactful choices were in the beginning, but I chose poorly or lost
Specifically in relation to picking up technologies. Unless you are working on something highly specialized, I am not sure your situation calls for such desperation. Learning new languages is not hard (as you are aware, as far as I can tell), and switching to a more agile stack like e.g. React/JavaScript could unlock new opportunities, considering how in demand it is across the industry.
> We grok that there's no way to opt out of reincarnation.
Hm. That's a personal belief, right? It seems like you are convinced in it as a fact of life, and that might not be the most change encouraging strategy. Similar to fatalism in a sense.
> Which means that the wealthy and powerful often live in a fear-based reality, while the poor often live in a love-based reality.
You are romanticizing the poor. Certain societies have more family and community oriented lifestyles. Not because they are poor but because they have a cultural predisposition and a tradition. Poverty is not full of love, financial abundance is not full of fear.
Modern-day spiritualism is dominated by shallow inspiration masqueraded as profound psychological and medical insight. Courses for "raising vibrational frequency", literal belief in astrology, crystal healing, etc.
Have been using ad blockers for such a long time that this satire is not even relatable. uBlock and the adblockers before that really saved my brain from all this rot.
In the game, I was essentially a metal sphere that could "jump" and float through a huge maze. It was a puzzle game.
Tried a ton of games on more modern headsets and never got into them. Zombie games, shooters, sims, etc - nothing came even close to the fascinating experience of that colossal maze.
So in my view, VR games have moved in the wrong direction. From games that explored the new opportunities VR offered to trying -- and failing -- to match the console game experience.
It's unethical but I am just tired of paying $$$ for products that break right after warranty ends.
> Telegram can be used as a tool to spread your disinfo, masking it as truth.
So can TV, newspapers, local websites, etc etc. And yet we know what happened to all Russian media that tried to spread messages contradicting the official position. I don't believe Russian gov (or Soviet for that matter) is confident enough to allow dissenting opinions to be spread on such a massive scale without a high degree of influence and/or monitoring.
I know usually the burden of proof is on the side of the conspiracists, but in this case I am not taking any chances. If it's a Russian company that is widely used by the Russian ideological state apparatus, I have zero trust in whatever their encryption promises are.
2. They can dox and eliminate any real threat if they can monitor the most popular communication tool
According to many sources, Telegram is a vital communication tool of the Russian military in the war with Ukraine. If that's true, then there can be only two primary interpretations: 1. Russian gov is astoundingly incompetent 2. They are able to monitor Telegram
When talking about UX, I am expressing an opinion based both on my experience as an engineer and as a user. In this case, I can state that something is better, at least in the sense that it's a more intuitive and an effective pattern.
If judgments like that trigger you - that's ok, I don't have to meet some unexpressed level of data-supported evidence.
> There's nothing tempermental or nuerotically formalized about politely offering a path for the conversation
Re-read your responses and imagine talking to someone in person with this level of nit-picking and animosity.
“You’re not wrong, Walter..." and so on.